USPTO Patents Application 10037067

United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 223 1 3- 1 450
www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

| ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.

CONFIRMATION NO.

10/037,067

12/21/2001

David E. Clune

Clune 3-4-18

5463

06/19/2007

RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
90 FOREST AVENUE
LOCUST VALLEY, NY 1 1560

EXAMINER

NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

ART UNIT

PAPER NUMBER

2143

MAIL DATE

DELIVERY MODE

06/19/2007

PAPER

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

www.uspto.gov

MAILED

JUN 1 9 2007

Technology Center 2100

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Application Number: 10/037,067
Filing Date: December 21, 2001
Appellant (s) : CLUNE ET AL.

Joseph B. Ryan, Reg. No. 3 7,922
For Appellant

EXAMINER'S ANSWER

This is in response to the appeal brief filed 16 April 2007
appealing from the Office action mailed 22 September 2006.

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 2

Art Unit: 2143

(1) Real Party in Interest

A statement identifying by name the real party in interest
is contained in the brief.

(2) Related Appeals and Interferences

The examiner is not aware of any related appeals,
interferences, or judicial proceedings which will directly
affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the
Board's decision in the pending appeal.

(3) Status of Claims

The statement of the status of claims contained in the
brief is correct.

(4) Status of Amendments After Final

The appellant's statement of the status of amendments after
final rejection contained in the brief is correct.
No amendment after final has been filed.

(5) Summary of Claimed Subject Matter

The summary of claimed subject matter contained in the
brief is correct.

(6) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal

The appellant's statement of the grounds of rejection to be
reviewed on appeal is correct.

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067
Art Unit: 2143

Page 3

(7) Claims Appendix

/

y

The copy of the appealed claims contained in the Appendix
to the brief is correct.

(8) Evidence Relied Upon

6,219,352 BONOMI 4-2001

Knuth, Donald E. "The Art of Computer Programming", 2nd Edition,

volume 1 "Fundamental Algorithms", 1973, pages 228-231 and 270-

273

(9) Grounds of Rejection

The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the
appealed claims:

Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which
forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this
Office action:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere

Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for

establishing a background for determining obviousness under 3 5

U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:

Application/Control Number : 10/037, 067 Page 4

Art Unit: 2143

1 . Determining the scope and contents of the prior art .

2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and
the claims at issue.

- 3 . Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
art .

4. Considering objective evidence present in the

application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness .

This application currently names joint inventors. In
considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a),
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various
claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered
therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that
was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in
order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35
U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior
art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US Patent 6 219 352 to Bonomi et al in view of
"The Art of Computer Programming: 2 nd Edition" to Knuth.

Regarding claim 1, Bonomi discloses a method for
identifying destination nodes of a multicast session in a
network having a plurality of nodes, comprising forming a linked
list ("queue") further comprising a list of destination nodes,
each destination node having an associated destination address

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 5

Art Unit: 2143

for receiving multicast data ("port mask") and a link to a next
destination node in the list for processing ("head pointer");
entering the list at an initial destination node; traversing the
linked list to process each destination node, for each
destination node, sending the multicast data to the associated
destination address and using the link to determine the next
destination node for processing; and terminating the traversing
step when all linked destination nodes have been processed
(terminating at the "tail pointer"), (column 10, line 61-column
11, line 35; column 13, lines 40-column 14, line 16,
specifically column 13, lines 46-60 and column 14, lines 3-16)

Bonomi does not expressly disclose a circularly linked
list, however, Knuth does disclose a circularly linked list
(page 270, section 2.2.4 "Circular Lists", specifically "A
circularly- linked list... has the property that its last node
links back to the first... It is then possible to access all of
the list starting at any given point")

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings
of these references since Knuth discloses that using a
circularly linked list allows for entry into the list at any
point (page 270, section 2.2.4 "Circular Lists", specifically
"It is then possible to access all of the list starting at any

Application/ Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 6

Art Unit: 2143

given point") . In view of these specific advantages and that the
references are directed to traversing linked lists or queues and
entering a linked list at a given point, one of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine these references and would
have considered them to be analogous to one another based on
their related fields of endeavor.

Regarding claim 2, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses the method further comprising receiving
data intended for transmittal to the identified destination
nodes of the multicast session. (Figure 2, step 22 0; column 7,
line 54-column 8, line 36, specifically column 7, lines 56-61;
column 13, lines 46-4 8)

Regarding claim 3, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 2.

Bonomi discloses wherein the initial destination node is
determined from the received data, (column 10, lines 12-60,
specifically lines 16-22; column 11, lines 18-47).

Regarding claim 4, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 2 .

Bonomi discloses wherein at least one destination node of
the list, as determined from the received data, is excluded from
the multicast session, (column 14, lines 17-25).

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 7

Art Unit: 2143

Regarding claim 5, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 4 .

Bonomi discloses wherein the received data includes an
indicator identifying the destination node that is to be
excluded from the multicast session, (column 14, lines 17-25)

Regarding claim 6, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 5.

Bonomi discloses wherein the indicator identifies the
destination node from which the data was received as the
destination node to be excluded from the multicast session,
(column 2, lines 45-67; column 14, lines 17-25) .

Regarding claim 7, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses wherein the initial destination node is
predetermined (column 13, lines 4 0 -column 14, line 2,
specifically column 13, lines 52-55)

Regarding claim 8, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses the method further comprising receiving
data intended for transmittal to the identified destination
nodes of the multicast session on an input port, and wherein the
initial destination node is determined based on the input port.

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 8

Art Unit: 2143

(column 10, lines 12-60, specifically lines 16-22; column 11,
lines 18-47; column 14, lines 47-58)

Regarding claim 9, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses wherein the address for entering the list
is the destination node from which the data was received,
(column 10, lines 12-60, specifically li r nes 16-22; column 11,
lines 18-47)

Regarding claim 10, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses wherein the traversed destination node

♦

entries are the identified destination nodes of the multicast
session, (column 13, lines 46-60)

Regarding claim 11, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1 wherein destination nodes for a plurality of multicast
sessions are interleaved in the list, and wherein the
destination nodes for each one of the plurality of multicast
sessions are linked, (column 13, lines 18-25)

Bonomi does not expressly disclose a circularly linked
list, however, Knuth does disclose this limitation (page 270,
section 2.2.4 ''Circular Lists", specifically "A circularly-
linked list... has the property that its last node links back to

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 9

Art Unit: 2143

the first... It is then possible to access all of the list
starting at any given point") .

Claim 11 is rejected since the motivations regarding the
obviousness of claim 1 also apply to claim 11.

Regarding claim 13, Bonomi and Knuth disclose the method of
claim 1.

Bonomi discloses wherein the link comprises a pointer at
each destination node that points to another destination node
such that the plurality of destination nodes are linked.

Bonomi does not disclose wherein the destination node
entries are circularly linked, however, Knuth does disclose
wherein entries are circularly linked (page 270, section 2.2.4
"Circular Lists", specifically "A circularly- linked list... has
the property that its last node links back to the first... It is
then possible to access all of the list starting at any given
point") .

Claim 13 is rejected since the motivations regarding the
obviousness of claim 1 also apply to claim 11.

Claim 14 is rejected since claim 14 recites a method that
contains substantially the same limitations as recited in claims
1 and 12 in combination.

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 10

Art Unit: 2143

Claim 15 is rejected since claim 15 recites an apparatus
that contains substantially the same limitations as recited in
claim 1.

(10) Response to Argument

Response to arguments presented for claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13 and 15:

First, the Examiner submits that the Applicant does not
provide arguments that the combined teachings of Bonomi and
Knuth fail to teach or suggest the limitations of the claims
other than the concept of circularly linked lists that Bonomi
does not expressly disclose. Therefore, the only issue regarding
whether the claims stand or fall is whether the combination of
the teachings of Bonomi and Knuth is proper. The Examiner
submits that the combination of these references is proper for
at least the following reasons.

In light of the Applicant's silence with respect to the
steps of forming a linked list, entering the list at an initial
destination node, traversing the linked list to process each
destination node within the linked list by sending multicast
data to an associated destination address within the node and
using a link to determine the next destination node the next
destination node for processing, and terminating the traversal
of the linked list when all linked destination nodes have been

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 11

Art Unit: 2143

processed are disclosed within Bonomi (see above rejection for
relevant passages within Bonomi) . The Examiner also asserts that
the general steps claimed for the formation and traversal of a
linked list is of notorious character and is well known by those
of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP 2144.03 states:

w Furthermore, it might not be unreasonable for the examiner
in a first Office action to take official notice of facts by
asserting that certain limitations in a dependent claim are old
and well known expedients in the art without the support of
documentary evidence provided the facts so noticed are of
notorious character and serve only to "fill in the gaps" which
might exist in the evidentiary showing made by the examiner to
support a particular ground of rejection. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ; Ahlert, 424
F.2d at 1092, 165 USPQ at 421."

While the aspects of these cases do not entirely control
here, the Examiner cites this passage within the MPEP to assert
that the above steps meet the "notorious character" standard
regarding linked lists and to also support the Examiner's
position that, while Bonomi fails to recite circularly linked
lists, the mere idea of a circularly linked list is of such
"notorious character" that one of ordinary skill in the art

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 12

Art Unit: 2143

would have recognized the uses and features of circularly linked
lists including at least for the reasons the Examiner has shown
within the teachings of Knuth and that Knuth merely as an
"evidentiary showing" to support that circularly linked lists
were of such an obvious nature that, in the absence of any
additional limitations within the claims to support any specific
and different features for using such a recited circularly
linked list, the general use of a circularly linked list would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made and that Knuth merely fills the gap
of Bonomi's deficiency regarding the express disclosure of
circularly linked lists. Therefore, the Examiner submits that
the first requirement of a prima facie case of obviousness has
been met, namely that there must be some suggestion or
motivation, either in the references themselves or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.

Furthermore, it is also asserted by the Examiner that the
recited steps of forming and traversing a linked list are
applicable to both general and circularly linked lists as taught
within the teachings of both Bonomi and Knuth. Therefore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have expected the recited steps
to operate with a circularly linked list in the same manners as

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 13

Art Unit: 2143

described in Bonomi . Therefore, the Examiner submits that the
second requirement of a prima facie case of obviousness has been
met, namely that there must be a reasonable expectation of
success.

Since the combined teachings of Bonomi and Knuth teach or
suggest all of the claim limitations, the Examiner submits that
all of the requirements for a proper prima facie case of
obviousness have been met. The Applicant has also failed to
provide any other arguments or evidence to show unobviousness.
Therefore, in sum, the Examiner submits that the rejection under
35 USC 103(a) is proper and that the rejection be maintained.
Response to arguments presented for claims 4-6:
The Applicant argues that that Bonomi fails to disclose
excluding at least one destination node of the list from the
multicast session as determined from an indicator identifying
the destination node as the node that sends the data and that
the node is to be excluded from the multicast session of the
received data intended for transmittal to the destination nodes.
The Examiner submits that Bonomi does at least reasonably
suggest, if not disclose, this limitation. Bonomi discloses that
"Multicast typically refers to the ability of one end-station
(source end station) to send a cell to several end- stations
(target end- stations) without the source end- station having to

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 14

Art Unit: 2143

retransmit the cell to the individual target end stations. Thus,
a multicast connection may be viewed as a tree having several
output branches corresponding to a single root or source. To
support multicasts, an intermediate switch may transmit each
cell received on a multicast connection on several ports, with
each transmission corresponding to an output branch. A cell
transmitted on a port may be transmitted on several additional
ports in another switch located further down the cell
transmission path. Such transmission on multiple ports in one or
more intermediate switches enables an ATM backbone to support
multicast transmissions. Thus, when a source end- system sends a
sequence of multicast cells on a multicast connection, a switch
may need to transmit each of the cells several times
(corresponding to several branches) to ensure that the cell is
received by all of the intended target end- systems. A switch may
maintain multiple copies of each multicast cell, with each copy
being used for transmission on an output branch." (column 2,
lines 46-60)

Bonomi goes to further disclose that "Ingress processor 410
receives ATM cells according to a pre-specif ied protocol on
lines 4 01 and 4 02 from individual ports (not shown) . In one
embodiment, the cells are received using the UTOPIA protocol
known well in the industry. According to this protocol,

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 15

Art Unit: 2143

information is received as to which port a corresponding cell is
received on . The received port and VPI/VCI information in a cell
are used to identify the input multicast connection . The input
multicast connection is identified by VCTAG. VCTAG table 415
stores the information necessary for determining the VCTAG for a
received cell based on VPI/VCI and port information . When a new
connection is opened, ingress processor 410 updates the
information in VCTAG table 415. Ingress processor 410 determines
VCTAG corresponding to each received cell by examining VCTAG
table 415. Ingress processor 410 transmits the VCTAG information
to traffic manager 420 on bus 412 when scheduled to do so by
port scheduler 44 0. Such scheduling is usually necessary because
ingress processor 410 may broadcast VCTAG information to all
traffic managers in switch 120, and the bus used for the
broadcast may be shared by all ingress processors. In addition,
the frequency of examining a port is dependent on the aggregate
bandwidth configured for the port. The bandwidth information is
stored in card scheduling table 445. Card scheduling table 445
may include information necessary for egress processing as well .
Thus, based on the data in card scheduling table 44 5, ingress
processor processes the data received on lines 401 and 402.
Ingress processor 410 transmits cell data (including header and
payload) to data path 480 on bus 418." (column 10, lines 12-41)

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 16

Art Unit: 2143

Bonomi then discloses that "Queue manager 43 0 determines
the ports on which each cell needs to be transmitted . In one
embodiment described in further detail below, queue manager 430
maintains a port mask associated with each QID. A table
providing the mapping may be stored in scheduler memory 431. The
port-mask identifies the output branches (in port card 491) on
which the cells of that QID need to be transmitted . As each
branch may be associated with a port, the port-mask indicates
the specific ports in port-card 491 on which the cells for the
corresponding QID need to be transmitted . For multicast cells to
be transmitted on more than one port of a port card, the port-
mask will indicate that transmission is required to more than
one port. In one embodiment, only one branch of a physical queue
can be transmitted on a port, and a bit is therefore maintained
for each branch/port. One value indicates that the cells
corresponding to the QID need to be transmitted on a
corresponding port, and the other value indicates that the cell
should not be transmitted on the port . Cells for each output
branch are identified by a logical queue. All the logical queues
are based on a single physical queue. The maintenance of
physical and logical queues in an example embodiment will be
described below." (column 11, lines 26-47)

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 17

Art Unit: 2143

Therefore, in view of the above disclosures, Bonomi
expressly discloses that a node sends data to the data switch
wherein the data includes information on where the data has
arrived from. Bonomi also discloses that, when the determination
is made as to 'where the received data is to be sent to, there is
a provision within the system that allows for the data not to be
sent to a destination node. Since it does not make reasonable
sense to send data back to a node that has the sent the data in
A the first place, Bonomi essentially discloses these limitations
since excluding the "destination node" that actually sends the
data that has been received would have been at least reasonably
inferred from the disclosures of Bonomi. Also, it would have
been considered to be common sense to those of ordinary skill
regarding the transmission of data between computers that
conventional data transmission systems do not generally send
data back to the source of such data, especially when it is
possible to indicate to the system that the cell should not be
sent to a particular node. Therefore, it is submitted that
Bonomi does at least reasonably suggest these limitations and
that the rejection of claims 4-6 be maintained.

Response to arguments presented for claims 9 and 14:
The Applicant argues that the address for entering the list
is the destination node from which the data was received. The

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 18

Art Unit: 2143

Examiner submits that Bonomi discloses wherein "Memory manager
450 keeps track of the free locations available for storing the
received cells. Free-list memory 451 is used to store the
necessary information. In one embodiment, the free-list is
maintained as a linked list. A head pointer and a tail pointer
are maintained, with the tail pointer being updated each time a
free location is added and the head pointer being updated when a
free location is provided for storage of a newly arrived cell."
(column 12, lines 7-14)

Bonomi also discloses that "Each logical queue is processed
to transmit cells on an output branch. Multicasting is achieved
by transmissions of cells on all such output branches. A logical
queue is defined by a head-pointer and a tail-pointer to the
stored physical queue. All the logical queues based on a single
physical queue can share a single tail-pointer, which will
require the updating of only a single pointer on the addition of
a new cell received on a multicast connection. The tail pointer
'identifies the storage location of the last cell received on a
connection. . .As each logical queue is traversed (by scheduler
470) in the cell order, the head-pointer corresponding to that
logical queue is updated to reflect the processed cells for that
branch . Thus, a head pointer for a logical queue points to the

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 19

Art Unit: 2143

next cell to be processed in the cell order for that logical
queue (branch) . " (column 13, lines 23-31 and 40-45)

Therefore, in light of the above disclosures, the head
pointer which indicates where to enter the list is the oldest
entry of data to be transmitted and that the tail pointer is
updated when new data is received. Therefore, the address used
to enter the list is, by virtue, the destination node which sent
the data. Therefore, it is submitted that Bonomi does disclose
this limitation and the rejection of claims 9 and 14 should be
maintained.

(11) Related Proceeding (s) Appendix

No decision rendered by a court or the Board is identified
by the examiner in the Related Appeals and Interferences section
of this examiner's answer.

Application/Control Number: 10/037,067 Page 20
Art Unit: 2143

For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections
should be sustained.

Conferees :